00925Councilman Naughten complimented Community Development Director John LaTourelle
and his Staff in regards to a letter from Albert LaPierre thanking the Staff
for the personal attention and cooperation in the project he is developing on
212th St.
Councilman Clement advised he would not be present for the August 15 meeting.
Councilman Gould reported that Councilman Carns and he had attended the last
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting and the Board was very receptive to
the proposed in -lieu park fee.
AUDIENCE
Henry Hurlbut of 1424 Olympic View Dr. asked that the Council reconcile City
parking regulations with those of the State inasmuch as the City had adopted the
Model Traffic -Ordinance. He had been cited for parking within 30' of a corner
MOTION: and the City signage did not reflect that. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO PLACE ON THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1978 AGENDA A REVIEW OF TRAFFIC
""CONTROL SIGNING IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
08.E✓.
William Mathias of 540 Holly Dr. proposed a change in notification to affected.
property owners when a construction is proposed. He believed property owners
up -to 500' away from the construction should be notified. Councilman Carns advised
him that a discussion is scheduled for August 15 regarding notification requirements
on ADB applications and he suggested Mr. Mathias be present.
Community Development Director John LaTourelle asked that the Council set a hearing
date of August 15 for LaPierre Enterprises (R-16-78) for a proposed rezone of
property on 212th St., west of 72nd Ave. W. and east of the Dairy Queen. COUNCIL-
MAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWO11AN ALLEN, TO SET A HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 15,
°-' �'�+�. 1978 FOR LaPIERRE ENTERPRISES, FILE R- 6-78. MOTION CARRIED.
,CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED APPLICATION ON "PARKSIDE.WEST"-"PRD2=78
This item had been continued from the July 25 meeting when the Council asked.for
a partial redesign incorporating several specific changes. Assistant City Planner
Noelle Charleson said the redesign was for five clusters of duplexes which resulted
in some space being gained between the units. The new plan also designated guest
parking and a walkway, and a detailed section of the walkway was included. The
City Attorney had drafted a covenant which the applicants would sign to restrict
construction on the property to 26 units, the open space being protected from
further development. Further, future owners of both PhaseI and Phase II units
will forfeit the right to refuse to participate in any future sewer LIDS designed.
to benefit the area within the City of Edmonds and contiguous to the Parkside !Jest
site. David Kinderfather, architect for the development referred to the drawing
of the walkway, noting that it will be 5' wide except for one area where it is
reduced to 4'10", and it will have a curb on each side. The existing rock retaining
wall is 62' high maximum in Phase II and 11' high maximum in Phase I, and Councilman
Nordquist suggested a railing along the walkway where that changes. Mr. Kinderfather
was very receptive to that suggestion and said it could be made a part of the
contingency. He said the City Attorney had prepared a document to assure the
other requirements, and he felt the new site plan was much superior to the previous
1 one. He said it would provide more screening, more open space on the more level
areas, retention of a cluster of trees near the east property line, and reduction
of cutting into the slope. Councilman Herb commended him on the revision and said
i he had felt from the beginning that this was a good plan. Councilman Carns asked
why the streets were private, rather than City -dedicated streets. Mr. Kinderfather
said it had been his impression from the City Staff that they preferred the streets
to be private so the City would not have to maintain them. He said they could be
designed to be City -dedicated streets if that was preferred. Community Development
Director John LaTourelle affirmed that impression. He said the City is reluctant
to accept as public responsibility roads that do not meet the width standards, and
the reduction in width is appropriate in a PRD. Further, he said the City is willing,
and often eager, to allow private roads in a PRD because the mechanism for the
maintenance of the roads is there in the form of the required home owners' association.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 - August 1, 1978
i '